Category Archives: Uncategorized

See the old one is bulging at seams so here is a NEW one until Monday…

These are the BIG issues that concern the BBC;

“Israelis have a reputation for straight-talking, a quality that visitors are not always prepared for. But what lies behind it?….”

Dd you see this?

The Commentator has learned that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the British publicly owned news organisation, has forged student credentials for its journalists in order that they could gain access to the secretive North Korea.

An e-mail from the director of the London School of Economics (LSE) on Saturday stated that the BBC used the visit to plant three journalists inside North Korea at a risk to the university and its students on the trip.

The letter states that a trip organised by the LSE’s ‘Grimshaw Club’ was used as cover by BBC journalists without the knowledge or consent of the London university. “The School authorities had no advance knowledge of the trip or of its planning,” it said.

The BBC has come off the fence on grounds of decency and taste:

The Wizard of Oz song at the centre of an anti-Margaret Thatcher campaign will not be played in full on the Official Chart Show.

Instead a five-second clip of the 51-second song will be aired as part of a Newsbeat report, Radio 1 controller Ben Cooper said.

Sales of Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead have soared since the former Prime Minister’s death on Monday, aged 87.

Mr Cooper called the decision “a difficult compromise”.

However, to play the song as part of the Chart Show would have put the BBC in a more invidious position. 

It goes without saying that a similar situation on the death of Princess Diana or, in the future, Nelson Mandela, would have immediately resulted in a ban on any song which was manipulated into the charts for political purposes or purely for reasons of hatred of either person.

 The BBC is all too ready to censor when it suits.

The BBC recently forced a playwright to alter their script as the BBC believed it could potentially offend Muslims.

The BBC similarly took the film ‘Greenmantle’ out of the schedules…presumably because it related a tale of Muslims joining up with the Germans in WWI with a hope of forming a ‘Caliphate’….the BBC doesn’t want anyone to think that Islamic radicalism was around before the 1930’s….because then they can claim that Islam has nothing to do with religious extremism or political radicalism…it does  not originate from the Islamic tenets or scriptures.

Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile have been to all intents and purposes erased from the BBC archives.

Today we hear that a Christian teacher is banned indefinitely from schools for revealing his views on homosexuality in reply to questions asked by students.

Ironically the judge explained:  ‘The policy was part of “modern British values of tolerance”‘

The furore over the song is all a bit of a storm in a tea cup but because the BBC is so ready to censor things which offend certain select groups or cultures and ideologies I think it is only right that they should not play the song.  To play it would indicate a definite bias against the Tories and Mrs Thatcher, a readiness to look the other way for Tories.  They would not deal  with a similar situation in the same way, as I say, on the death of Princess Diana or Nelson Mandela….an immediate ban would be in place.

There is also a very strong case for not playing it on grounds of taste and decency considering the responsibility the BBC bares in its position at the ‘heart of the Nation’ as it likes to remind us frequently and its own perception of itself as something above the rabble in the rest of the media, especially the Redtops….and as it seems, they have decided along those lines.

The BBC says: “It is a compromise and it is a difficult compromise to come to. You have very difficult and emotional arguments on both sides of the fence.

“Let’s not forget you also have a family that is grieving for a loved one who is yet to be buried.”

Toby Young in the Telegraph thinks that not playing the song is the end of free speech…but of course it isn’t at all….The case of the Christian teacher might be though.  The song is not a satirical comment nor a political tract…it is purely intended by the organisers to celebrate the death of Mrs Thatcher, after wishing it upon her for years…and so could be, and probably is, a ‘hate crime’…not playing it is therefore not the censoring of free speech but of hate speech.

Is it OK to wish death upon someone just because of their political views?  What’s the difference between that and wishing death upon someone because of their race?

When Ed Miliband and Co denounce the Tories for being ‘poshboys’ or ‘Toffs’ unable to do their job because of their ‘class’….is that not the same as racism?  And yet the BBC laughs it off as a big joke.  Isn’t it Miliband’s attitude that informs the attitude of those who think celebrating the death of Mrs Thatcher is a good idea…it is demonising, dehumanising the Tories, the ‘nasty party’, or ‘the Rich’, so that it becomes seemingly OK to wish death upon them.

Targeted ridicule, satire and rational, reasoned critiques have their place and are necessary to keep politician’s and other’s feet on the ground and to stop them believing their own hype but outright gratuitous abuse has no place under the banner of ‘Free Speech’ if the only object is to hurt the other person’s feelings, purely to insult or injure.

Amused by this from the Beeb in 2005 when they were looking at the ‘Thatcher Years In Graphics’

The first graphic that they use to sum up Thatcher’s legacy?

That’s right…Champagne sales to all those nouveau riche barrow boys who flashed the cash.

The BBC could I suppose have had a graph showing how many ‘plebs’ with the wrong school  tie were able to get jobs in the City when Thatcher broke the monopoly of the Old School Tie network that used to run the place…now ‘democratised’.

Or indeed how many Champagne bottles littered the corridors of Broadcasting House after the election of Labour to power in 1997.

I had the misfortune to listen to a few moments of this BBC production “Mark Thomas; The Manifesto”  Pure blatant Marxism. Remarkable. With the BBC, the manifesto is always clear.

I wanted to create a specific post for Question Time tonight.

‘David Dimbleby presents Question Time from Lady Thatcher’s former constituency of Finchley.  On the panel are Conservative Cabinet Minister Ken Clarke MP, Labour’s former Home Secretary David Blunkett MP, former leader of the Liberal Democrats Ming Campbell MP, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee and Lady Thatcher’s authorised biographer Charles Moore.”

I can’t liveblog it but I can those of you watching it …and I will be…to leave your opinions here. I fear the worst…

These fill up quicker than I can post them but here you go, a new Open Thread.

I wasn’t going to comment any more on the BBC and Mrs Thatcher but unfortunately the first thing I heard on the radio this morning was the voice of Justin Webb….not a good start to any day.

When speaking to Conservative MP, Connor Burns, Webb said there was a trap here… that by eulogising her the Tories risked alienating those who didn’t like Mrs Thatcher. (8:58)

In that simple statement Webb sums up the whole BBC ethos….do not offend anyone even if it means surrendering your own principles and values…no matter what the provocation or likely end result you must not ‘fight’ or stand up for your own beliefs and interests.

‘Appeasement’ is another way of describing the Webb attitude….I may rename him ‘Justin Case’….do nothing, say nothing just in case it might offend.

The Telegraph tells us that the BBC Trust has released the new Director General’s contract of employment.:

 ‘Mr Hall to change the culture of the BBC by being open about its failings.

Mr Hall’s contract forbids him from making “any derogatory or unfavourable public remark or statement” about the BBC, either during his time in office or the two years afterwards.

He is also barred from writing or speaking about the BBC without its “prior written consent”, and from engaging in “any political activities”.

The BBC Trust said it disclosed the contract in “the interests of transparency”, marking a contrast to the steps it took with Mr Entwistle’s package which was only published after a Freedom of Information request.’

Now we know why Tony Hall said that the BBC was not left of centre…he couldn’t say the truth as the BBC really believes it isn’t…and therefore any such remark is ‘derogatory or unfavourable’.

Surely this, if typical of BBC contracts, would prevent BBC employees taking to Twitter and using the  ‘These ideas are all my own and are entirely separate from work’ type defense (Section 5.1):

You will not….engage in activities outside work which the BBC believes are likely to interfere, conflict (actual or potentially) or compete with the proper performance of your duties or the business of the BBC….whereby [the BBC is], in the opinion of the BBC, brought or is likely to be brought into disrepute or its reputation for impartiality is likely to be affected.

You shall not engage in any political activities. 

Also note that failure to adhere to the BBC editorial guidelines is a serious offence and could result in their employment being put at risk.

The BBC can access, intercept, read and monitor employees internet use (Section 8)……work related or not…under its ‘Acceptable Use’ policy.

Oddly they must disclose any and all ideas, works, inventions and designs created by an employee whether or not work related….and it becomes the property of the BBC. (Section 3.6)

I don’t know if this conflicts with the ‘gagging order’ on Tony Hall et al but the BBC Trust also says this as a ‘mission statement’:

The BBC exists to serve the public, and its mission is to inform, educate and entertain. The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC, and we make sure the BBC delivers that mission

We set the strategic objectives for the BBC. We have challenged the BBC to:

set new standards of openness and transparency

Of course the ‘new standards’ could just be a lower standard of openness and transparency…but that would just be a cynical thing to say.